Raiders defensive tackle Richard Seymour played the 2010 season for over $12 million on a one-year franchise tag. According to Jerry McDonald of the Oakland Tribune, Seymour can expect the same designation in 2011, but with a sizable raise.

Writes McDonald, “It’s looking like the Raiders have every intention” of tagging Seymour for a second straight season.

Per usual CBA rules, doing so would raise Seymour’s salary 20 percent, or to roughly $14.9 million. So including last year’s tender, he’d essentially end up with a two-year deal worth upwards of $28 million. And it’s all guaranteed.

Whether or not the franchise tag should be allowed is a subject of contention between the owners and NFLPA, but for now the Raiders plan on it being available.

Seymour, 31, racked up 5.5 sacks and 48 tackles, and recovered a fumble in 13 starts this past season after moving from left defensive end to “three technique” defensive tackle. He made his sixth career Pro Bowl.

I think they want the long term deal since they get a larger bulk of money up-front.

Example: Seymour signs 4 year deal worth 52 million and 30 is guaranteed.

Even though he will get less, he still gets 30million instead of 18 up front (plus 5.5/year), so that protects him from injury a lot more then a one year deal. Very important at the end of a players career.

I've never understood why players don't like getting tagged. It seems to me like they're getting thrown into a swimming pool of money.

sometimes, not in this case, guys dont like it because they are sick of being stranded on the same shit team. I'm not saying Seymour is sick of Oakland but in a more recent one, Dunta Robinson wanted no part of the shit Texans at one point because they kept tagging him and they kept sucking, when he clearly knew he could land on a more talented team like Atlanta.

I'm not saying Robinson is good but I'm saying guys usually want out because they want to hit the market and go to better teams